• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

John Jimco

Recruit
24 Badges
Sep 11, 2016
6
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
20230124180300_1.jpg


Andrew Moray won the Battle of Stirling Bridge, William Wallace lost the Battle of Falkirk. Brilliant Strategist for a guy who only jointly won one battle planned by Moray? A guy who sets up his men in an open field with undefended flanks at Falkirk against the English with their archers in tow? And then he just sits still? Tough Soldier maybe, but I personally would choose misguided warrior considering his short and incompetent command. Quick is also silly. Nothing I've found suggests he was smarter than average at best. Having a bloodline for such an unexceptional leader is silly as well. His other traits seem variable so no comment.

Screw Blind Harry and Mel Gibson.
 
If you want to have a debate about history, i can recommend the History subforum.

 
Last edited:
If you want to have a debate about history, i can recommend the History subforum.
I would have posted in suggestions if I could but this is the closest option. It's a pretty clear historical discrepancy and is out of place in a game that at least purports to be historical (at least at the starting dates). Thank you for replying though.
 
I would have posted in suggestions...


Which would have made even less sense, with the game being out of development since 2019.
There won't be any change, so all you do is talk to the wind in the end... here at least you can at best have a talk about it from
the historical point and a debate about that, the history creation, Wallace, the history and the movie if you want and the differing
views, eblish/scottish perspective etc.

But will anybody talk about it in the forum for the game ?
With the game being released 11 years ago, probably not.

Then from my point of view and apart form the really and undisputed factual points, there is still a lot of anti-scottish propaganda
and bias around, and not only from back in the days, but until today and there are in general differing interpretations and views.
No matter my point of view, it can still become a bit problematic/heated or more positively expressed interesting and challenging
to debate about it. I'm not interested in a debate about the topic by the way. Have not delved the topic deep enough.
All i recall is that there are not really enough reliable sources to be sure about several aspects regarding Wallace.
So it might not be as clear as you think..or some folks write on Wikipedia.

Either way the history subforum would be the best place and you would more likely find people wanting to talk to you about it.
So better for you in end.

Hence my suggestion.
Better than noone replying, right ? ;)
You'r e welcome.

Anyway, enjoy.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions: